search_notes_ranked

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the ranking algorithm, result format (headers with score and snippet), boost for title/heading/tag matches, and pagination cap. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions, but for a search tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three well-structured sentences. First sentence gives core purpose and scoping, second explains results and boosting, third contrasts with sibling and adds cap detail. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: ranking, scoping, result structure, and pagination. It lacks explicit details on error handling or the exact return format fields, but overall is sufficient for selecting and using the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema by mentioning 'title/heading/tag matches boosted' (ranking behavior) and 'offset pages past the cap' (pagination nuance). This extra information justifies a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs 'full-text search ranked by BM25 relevance' and lists scoping options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_notes' by contrasting relevance ranking vs literal/regex unranked search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Complements search_notes (which is literal/regex, unranked),' guiding when to use this tool vs the alternative. It also notes the positive limit cap at 100 and offset pagination, providing clear usage boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.